TheVperyod group has published in Paris a
“symposium of articles on current questions” entitled
Vperyod. Together with Comrade
Sazhin’s{3} pamphlet (On the Question of the Regeneration of the
Party), which was “published by private donation” and is obtainable
through the editors of the symposium Vperyod, and the separate
leaflet issued over the signature of the Vperyod group and the
platform of this group, the Party has now more than sufficient material by
which to judge the Vperyodists.

Theplatform of the Vperyodists is characterised by the following three
features. Firstly: of all the groups and factions within our Party it has
been the first to give prominence to philosophy and that under cover of a
pseudonym. “Proletarian culture”, “proletarian philosophy”—these are
the words used in the platform. They are a pseudonym for Machism,
i.e., a defence of philosophical idealism under various garbs
(empirio-criticism, empirio-monism, etc.).
Secondly: in the political sphere the group has declared otzovism “a
legitimate shade of opinion” and reported that some otzovists, members of
this group, disagreed with the definition of the Party’s tasks in regard to
the State Duma. The definition itself given in the Vperyod
platform is so unclear and confused that it can only be described as an
adaptation to the otzovist ideology. Thirdly, and lastly, the platform
emphatically condemned factionalism and demanded the unification of
factions, their coalition into one party.

Andso we have as a result—if we begin from the end—one very good
aspiration and two screens on the part of very bad ideological and
political trends which stand for a break with Marxism and the subordination
of the proletariat
to bourgeois ideology and policy. The Vperyod symposium shows
vividly what products can result from such a mixture.

Theauthor of the leading article in the symposium, Maximov, keeps
strictly to the diplomacy used in the platform, speaking of “proletarian
culture” without any explanation of what he means by this. In an article
which claims to be a popular exposition this game of hide-and-seek is
strikingly obvious. What kind of popular exposition is this if not a
single reader; unless he happens to be personally acquainted
with Maximov or has already followed the whole controversy about
Machism and relating to Machism, is able to understand the true
meaning of such a phrase? What kind of popular exposition is this when the
same Maximov, on page 4 of the symposium, speaks of the “danger to
proletarian socialism” represented by those offshoots of the
intelligentsia who “uncritically accept and propagate ideas of bourgeois
science and philosophy that are incorrect and harmful to the
proletariat...”?

Thedots are Maximov’s. We do not know if they are meant to signify a
shamefaced silence. But we are quite sure that to speak, especially in a
“popular” article, of the harmfulness of “bourgeois
philosophy” to the proletariat without specifying clearly and exactly
which philosophy he is referring to, is to have recourse to the
worst form of factional diplomacy. If you consider bourgeois philosophy an
important question and raise it in the leading article of a “popular”
symposium, then have the courage to speak straight out, defend your ideas
and do not conceal them.

ComradeSazhin, presumably in the capacity of a “practical” man,
spoils Maximov’s diplomacy most
impolitely.”[1]
On page 31 of his pamphlet he demands that “Party members” must be
“ensured” “complete freedom for their revolutionary and
philosophical thought”.

Thisslogan is thoroughly opportunist. In all countries this kind of
slogan has been put forward in the socialist parties only by opportunists
and in practice has meant nothing but “freedom” to corrupt the working
class with bourgeois ideology. “Freedom of thought” (read: freedom of the
press, speech and conscience) we demand from the state (not from a
party) together with freedom of association. The party of the proletariat,
however, is a free association, instituted to combat the
“thoughts” (read: the ideology) of the bourgeoisie, to defend and put
into effect one definite world outlook, namely, Marxism. This is the
ABC. Yet their false political position has caused Maximov, Sazhin and
Co. to forget this ABC. It was not their personal hypocrisy but the falsity
of their political position that made them propagate bourgeois slogans. The
falsity consists in the fact that some Vperyodists long with all their
heart and soul to drag the proletariat back, to the ideas of
bourgeois philosophy (Machism), while others are indifferent to philosophy
and merely demand “complete freedom” ... for Machism. Hence they are
obliged one and all to practice diplomacy, to confuse the issue,
to play hide-and-seek and to clutch at bourgeois slogans.

Andwhat does “complete freedom of revolutionary thought”
really mean? Nothing but freedom for otzovist and other
semi-anarchist ideas. In other words, the same thing is said here as is
expressed in the “platform” of the Vperyodists by the phrase about
recognising otzovism to be a “legitimate shade of opinion”. The result is
again petty diplomacy with ideas, playing hide-and-seek, and hypocrisy, due
entirely to the same false ideological and political position: we are not
Machists, but we are in favour of “complete freedom” for Machism (in the
Party); we are not otzovists, but we are in favour of “complete freedom”
for the otzovist shade of opinion, or more generally: “for revolutionary
thought"! The confusion is further confound ed by the fact that
two Vperyodists over their personal signatures (Sazhin
and Rabochy
Ar.{4}) vigorously maintain the importance and necessity of utilising
legal opportunities
and the Duma tribune. “The Social-Democrats,” writes Rabochy
Ar., “must combat those who are carrying on agitation [but who is
carrying on this agitation, Comrade Ar.? Is it not your Vperyodists?]
against any utilisation whatsoever [think of that!] of
legal opportunities, because such a mode of action is not
Social-Democratic” (pp. 48–49 of the symposium). And the same Ar.,
repeating these words of the Bolsheviks of the Proletary
trend, violently abuses Proletary (post factum) because it
allegedly painted the Vperyodists in strange colours! That is what is
called retreating all along the line, surrendering all your positions,
condemning in the press (again without saying it straight forwardly) those
friends of yours, those Vperyodists who once passed a resolution, for
instance, to boycott a congress of factory doctors—and covering your
retreat, your capitulation, by a beating of drums for battle. Shabby
factional diplomacy!

Justtake a look at the writings of the “Vperyodists” on the question
of factions and factionalism. The “platform” condemned factions and
demanded their dissolution. Sazhin fulminates against the factional
centres, the “leaders abroad”, and so on and so forth. The Vperyodists
have shed an ocean of tears over factionalism, have talked them selves
hoarse on the subject.

Butwhat have they done? The whole history of the Vperyod
group since the January (1910) “unity” plenum has been the formation
of a faction from abroad. Here is an excerpt from a letter (July 15,
1910) sent by a Russian functionary to a member of the Central Committee
Bureau Abroad:

“Thereis a committee (in St. Petersburg) and, in addition, there is a
group of Vperyodists with a separate fund and secretary. Money was received
from abroad. In Moscow...”—then follows the name of a person who is very
close to one of the most prominent otzovists and a comment on the
prosecution of such a policy.

Nobodywho has any knowledge of Party affairs, or has paid any
attention to the policy of the Vperyod literary group, can doubt
for a single moment that they have been organising a faction from
abroad. That the notorious “school in X.—” was the foreign centre of a
new faction was stated
in print in
July 1909,{2}
and since then even the most unconcerned and uninformed Social-Democrats
have become convinced of this fact. The famous “platform” was drawn up
abroad by eight intellectuals and seven worker-students. The part played by
these workers, who hastily gave their signatures to the slogans of
“proletarian philosophy” and recognition of otzovism as a “legitimate
shade of opinion” is too obvious to deserve any further comment. We have
here a clear-cut case of the formation of a faction by a group of literati
abroad, who indeed behave like “khans”
(Voinov’s{5} expression in the Vperyod symposium), for they
themselves are conscious of their despotism, concealing from the
public what is most dear to them, i. e., the bourgeois philosophy of
Machism and otzovism. The Vperyodists cry out against “leaders abroad”
and at the same time form an organisation which in actual fact is a mere
adjunct to a handful of literati abroad; they cry out against
faction and themselves secretly create a new, petty, lifeless and
sectarianly empirio-monistic faction. The political source of all
this hypocrisy is that the real leaders of the faction find it impossible
to come out openly and directly in favour of the things that are really
dear to them.

Weshall confine ourselves to two particularly glaring examples of
hypocrisy. On page 53 of the symposium, Rabochy Ar. declares that
the Bureau of the Central Commit tee in Russia “is not doing a damned
thing” (these words of course are ascribed to a “Leninist” worker who is
alleged to have agitated the “Vperyodist” in this strain. Oh, the naive
cunning of “Rabochy Ar.”!) and that the Vperyodist (again with the
“Leninist” and, of course, on his instigation) proposed that the “Moscow
organisation be declared independent of the Russian Central Committee and
no longer subordinate to its instructions”.

Beginningwith January 1910 the Bureau of the Russian Central Committee
worked hard to restore the central organisation in spite of the
opposition both of the Golosist liquidators (the famous Mikhail, Roman and
Yuri incident) and of the Vperyodists (who at this time were building
their own little faction from abroad against the Central
Committee). And now all these Vperyodists are shedding crocodile tears over
the “inaction” of the Bureau of the C.C.! These Vperyodists, who are
actually entirely “independent” of the Party, and are entirely
anti-Party factionalists, write in a popular symposium that local
organisations must be declared “independent” of the C.C.

Anotherexample. In the same symposium an anonymous “member of the
Party” exercises himself in some hack writer’s criticism of the financial
report of the C.C. Bureau Abroad. Among other things the anonymous hack
writes on p. 60: “What kind of ‘trustees’ [the report speaks of money
received from trustees], why they are ‘holding in trust’, or have, been
‘holding in trust’, money of the C.C., and for what ‘special purposes’ this
money is destined, is something which nobody will understand here.”

Thatis just how it is printed. Nobody will understand.

Itis written by members of that same Vperyod group which had
two representatives at the January plenum that heard the statement of the
Bolsheviks about their conditional transfer of money to “trustees”
(i. e., to three of the best known representatives of the International
Social-Democratic movement). What money, from what source, who were the
trustees, and so on—all this was fully known to the plenum,
i. e., to all the factions, i. e., to the “Vperyodists” as
well. Yet in a “popular” symposium for the deception of the workers,
the Vperyodists write “nobody will understand.”

Itis written in that same Vperyod symposium, whose first two
articles were signed by Maximov and
Domov.{6} Both these Vperyodists are perfectly aware of the
whole history of the receipt of this money by the Bolsheviks and its
transfer to the trustees. And now, since it would be “awkward” for them
to come forward personally and declare that “nobody will understand”,
they select for this commission anonymous hack writers, who call
themselves “members of the Party” on the occasion of their anti-Party
conduct. Through these anonymous hacks Maximov and Domov in a “popular”
symposium tell the workers a deliberate untruth, that “nobody
will understand” what kind of “trustees” these are, and so on. And these
gentlemen beat their breasts and harangue against “factions” and
“leaders abroad”.

Throughan anonymous “Party member” they “criticise” the financial
report of the Central Committee while they themselves announce on the first
page of their symposium that hitherto “lack of funds” prevented their
group from publishing a newspaper but “now this obstacle has been re
moved”. So the Vperyod group has now received
funds. Pleasant news for the Vperyodists, no doubt. But what a “nerve”
you must have, oh most honourable Vperyodists, to utter in print through an
anonymous hack in a “popular” symposium a deliberate untruth about the
Central Committee to the effect that “nobody will understand” who the
“trustees” are and what money is in their possession, and at the same
time say never a word to the C.C. or the other factions about
what money “Vperyod” has received and what literati are disposing of
it? The Party, it would seem, is accountable to the Vperyodists but
the Vperyodists are not account able to the Party?

Itmust be repeated over and over again that this hypocrisy of the
Vperyodists is due not to the personal traits of Peter or Paul but to the
political falsity of their whole position; it is due to the fact
that the Machist literati and the otzovists cannot go into battle
openly and directly for their non-Social-Democratic pet
ideas. Anyone who under stands these political conditions will not
come to a halt bewildered, mystified and downcast at the merely superficial
aspect of the matter, at the mass of personal conflicts, bickering, abuse,
etc. Anyone who understands these political conditions will not be
satisfied by a conciliatory phrase (à la Trotsky) to the
effect that what we need is “not a struggle against the otzovists
but the overcoming of otzovism”, for this is empty and
meaningless phrase-mongering. The objective conditions of the
counter-revolutionary era, the era of disintegration, the era of
god-building, the era of Machism, otzovism and liquidationism—these
objective conditions have put our Party in a state of war against
circles of literati who are organising their own factions, and this
struggle cannot be evaded by a phrase. To stand aside from this struggle is
to stand aside from one of the contemporary tasks of the Social-Democratic
Labour Party.

Notes

[1]
In the Vperyod symposium another “practical man”, “Tkach
I–n"{7} of St. Petersburg also gives the game away not very
diplomatically: “Incidentally,” he writes, “Beltov’s book, The
Monist View, is especially likely to give rise to such a wrong notion
of historical materialism” (Symposium, p. 57). Why, of course! The truest
“notion of historical materialism” is given, of course, by the books of
the Russian god-builders and Machists—what Vperyodist does not know this?
And how can a book which has helped to rear a whole generation of Russian
Marxists compete with the philosophical products of the Yushkeviches,
Bogdanovs, Valentinovs and Lunacharskys?... —Lenin